Author: Fritz Pettyjohn

The two poles of regulatory reform are 1) Require all regulations be approved by Congress to 2) Require “expensive” regulations be approved by Congress.  But how to you get rid of existing regulation?  By Act of Congress  — not easy.  But this is linear thinking.  Article V is an open invitation to think outside the box.  If it’s politically feasible, it can be done.  That’s the only restraint on an Article V Convention.

Constitutional regulatory reform could involve the creation of an entirely new institution — say, the Federal Regulation Commission.  Its members would be appointed by the States.  It could repeal any existing regulation.  But Congress could overturn any repeal, by statute.

Maybe that’s not the answer.  There may be problems with that approach that I’m not aware of.  But the point is that it’s possible.  New institutions can be created.  The Framers didn’t anticipate the Regulatory State.  So the way to solve the problem is up to today’s political leaders.  The possible solutions are limited only by the imagination.

Not all American political institutions are creatures of government.  Our political parties created themselves.  The Majority Coalition of the 2016 Amendment Convention, if it comes into being, will have created itself.  Even after the Convention has adjourned it can continue in existence if that is the will of the group.  It may be just an informal committee of correspondence, but it can meet, and, collectively, make decisions  — decisions binding only on itself, such as what is the consensus for a subject of a second Convention.  Individual members of the Coalition would come and go with each election cycle.  But there would be enough continuity to create a new political institution, if that is the will of the members.  An institution with the potential to solve many of the problems we face.

Imagine.

Alan Dye is a big time 501(c)(3) lawyer who formed CBBAC with Charlie Black and Rod Smith four or five years ago.  Biddulph is staging a friendly takeover.  He, Fruth, Stu McPhail and I would be added to the board.  It will likely be the official sponsoring organization behind the San Diego Summit.

I’m going to suggest that CBBAC contact every Presidential candidate and ask them to make a five minute presentation to the Summit, either live through our Go To Meeting connection, or pre-taped.  We’d ask them to state their position on the BBA and on the effort to achieve it through Article V.

I think we’ll get a very good response.  Why not?  Afraid to piss off the Birchers?

The most interesting response will be from Scott Walker, who has been nowhere to be seen as one of Wisconsin’s outstanding legislators, Rep. Chris Kapenga, has struggled for three years to pass our Resolution.

Harry Bradley was a successful Milwaukee industrialist who was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.  He and his brother Lynde set up the Bradley Foundation, currently with assets of around $800 million.  This Foundation is one of the pillars of Walker’s strength, and has greatly assisted him in a variety of ways throughout his career as Governor.  Michael Grebe is a retired lawyer who runs the Foundation.  I suspect that he opposes Article V for the same reason that the Kochs do, and Utah Senator Lee did: fealty to the previous generation and its prejudices.  Walker is just playing along.

It’s a mistake, and he’s going to get a chance to rectify it.  When he’s asked by CBBAC for his position on an Article V BBA he’ll have an opportunity to rethink his position.  If he passes he’s not smart.

Maybe he’s not smart.   This cycle, up against this field, you don’t win if you’re not smart.

And what does Jeb Bush do?  We made our pitch for help to his “issues guy” a month ago, and haven’t heard a peep.  You got a problem, Jeb?  What’s your problem?  Ted Cruz says he’s with us, in private.  Nothing in public.  Why so shy, Ted?

I don’t think people in New Hampshire like the Iowa caucuses.  And they’re flinty New Englanders.  When Walker goes to New Hampshire will anybody ask him about his support for the ethanol boondoggle in Iowa?  Why not?

Kasich’s in Utah attending Romneyville.  Mitt’s money guys will be looking him over, along with four or five other contenders.  At least on the surface he should appeal to them.  A pragmatist, not an ideologue.  A solid record of accomplishment in Congress.  A Lehman veteran.  A highly successful Governor of The Swing State.  If he talks up the BBA, will any of them be smart enough to see the political fallout from a successful Article V BBA?  Would any of them have the wit to act on this insight?

Probably not.  These guys spend their time on money, not ideas.  For some reason the two don’t mix well.  Money may not stink, but it doesn’t make you smart.

Brad Bales says the letters from Faber went out, so it’s time for the follow up.  I’ve decided to be personally responsible for raising the money for eleven western states.*  If I can’t raise the money I’ll pay their expenses out of my own pocket.

My follow up email will advise them of Faber’s invite, briefly describe the agenda, and offer to prepay the expense of airfare and two nights hotel for the legislator and their spouse/companion.  If they do intend to come, and need expense reimbursement, they will be asked to RSVP with their estimate of their expenses.   A check in that amount from the National Tax Limitation Foundation will be sent to them no later than July 10th.  If the email elicits no response phone calls will follow.

I’ve got enough squirreled away to cover the costs of eleven states, if, God forbid, I can’t raise the money.  We’ll have to figure out something else for the other 39 states.  On a state by state basis.  Lots of lobbyists like to do favors for presiding officers.  We’ll find a way.

We’ll have a mini cattle call in San Diego.  We’re going to ask every Presidential candidate, Republican and Democrat, to Skype in to the meeting to make a five minute presentation on their position on an Article V BBA.  If every damn one of the says yes it would extend the time by less than two hours, which is manageable.  We’ll ask Kasich first, and I’d be shocked if he said no.  If you’re Rick Perry, or Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum, or Carly Fiorina  etc. etc., why would you not take five minutes out of your Saturday schedule to appear before some of the nation’s most powerful political figures from all across the country?  I think a bunch of these people will say yes.  Getting them on record, on C-Span,  in support of the campaign will be a big boost.  It will help us get to 34.

Momentum is one of the intangibles of politics.  Timing is another.  The political tide runs strongly with us, and the stars are coming into alignment.  It is time to act.

For time, and tide, wait for no man.

*ID, AK, WY, NV, MT, AZ, WA, NM, CO, CA, and OR>

Everybody bitches about Obama and Carter, but if you want the two worst Presidents of the 20th Century you go to Wilson and FDR.  They “won” wars we should not have had to fight.  And they were contemptuous of the Constitution.

I could be off on this, but I believe no two term Presidency has ever been as thoroughly repudiated as Wilson’s.  Harding’s 1920 landslide, and the return to normalcy, were great moments in 20th Century American history.  The Harding-Coolidge years were some of the best we’ve ever had.

96 years later we’re going to do it again  — Obama is really another Wilson, in some ways.  Who’s our Harding?  We don’t know yet, but the good news is that Harding, and later Coolidge, were in no way remarkable men.  They weren’t Reagan, or JFK, but normal, mainstream conservative Republicans.  Looking at this field of ours, I look in vain  — as I have for 27 years  — for another Gipper.  None to be seen.  But we can get by with another Harding, so no worries, mate.

I’d be ready, right now,  to predict a win, except for events.  Shit happens.  As I look ahead to what is likely to happen I see a lot of things that will, on net, help the cause.  I don’t see anything coming that would hurt it.

America is exceptional.  Looking back on our history, the whole thing is so improbable, and awesome, that you’re tempted to ascribe some of our good fortune to divine intervention.  That’s a mistake.  We are not God’s chosen people.

We are a self chosen people.

Some recent polls show we’re becoming more liberal on social issues, and this has made some liberal political columnists happy.  Youth will be served, and young Americans are not social conservatives.  Santorum, Huckabee  and other traditionalists who appeal principally to the Christian right turn most young voters off.  So is this a problem for Republicans?

Nope.  The essence of federalism is tolerance.  The people of South Dakota are strongly against abortion.  California is the reverse opposite.  Colorado and other states want legalized marijuana.  Most states probably don’t.  Gay marriage flies in some parts of the country, not in others.  True American conservatives  — those faithful to the federalist impulse at the heart of the Constitution  — don’t have a problem with any of this.  Let the states decide.  It’s that simple, and it appeals to the young, whose attitude is a combination of “Care about it”, “Do your own thing”, and “Stay out of my life and I’ll stay out of yours.”

This is anathema to so-called progressives, who have succumbed to the flip side of federalism  — fascism, intolerance, and demands for uniformity.  So let the election next year be, in part, between the tolerance of federalism and the rigidity of the hard left.

The public seems to be going the other way on abortion.  Even the young don’t really approve, but almost everyone is conflicted on it.  But the political answer on abortion is the same as on every other social issue  — let the states, and the people within each of them, decide. .

The Supreme Court may be set to rule soon on gay marriage.  If Justice Kennedy wants to keep getting invited to fancy cocktail parties he’ll rule that gays have a constitutional right to marriage.  That’s complete bullshit.  Another Roe v. Wade, the worst decision since Dred Scott.  If that’s what happens there might be a place for Article V.  Use it to amend the Constitution to return the power to decide social issues to the states.  Abortion, gay marriage and marijuana would no longer be within the domain of the federal courts or Congress.  The people of each state will decide these matters for themselves.

There may not be the kind of consensus on this idea that is required for a successful Article V movement.  But it is a solution that most Republicans and moderates could live with.  It’s the best political answer to some vexing political questions.

I’m totally convinced that if we have an Amendment Convention on the BBA it will be followed by Conventions on other topics.  If the Reagan Initiative is included in the BBA it’s possible the Second Convention could be on social issues.  Time will tell.

Since the idea of the Reagan Initiative surfaced three months ago no one has argued that it is outside the scope of a BBA.  Some people haven’t embraced it, but no one has tried to say that it couldn’t be done, legitimately.  When I explained it to Kelly Mader in Savannah he didn’t immediately buy in.  He wanted somebody’s legal opinion  — maybe the corporate counsel at Peabody, presumably some kind of big time lawyer.  When he joined our San Diego cc yesterday it meant that he’d been given the green light by whomever he consulted with.  You may not like the idea of transferring federal lands to the states, or constitutional regulatory reform, but you’re not going to be able to say that the Amendment Convention cannot address these issues if it chooses to do so.

Mader said something else that rang a bell. The EPA is running amok.  Their proposed regulations will kill the coal industry, but they’ve got a whole lot more coming down the pike.  They want EPA jurisdiction and control over every mud puddle in the country.  They’ve gone berserk.  It’s as though Obama has decided that fighting climate change is going to be his legacy, and he doesn’t care too much if he pisses the whole country off while he’s at it.  The coal industry may be ready to roll over and play dead, but a lot of people are going to want to fight.  What can they do, with Obama and his veto pen?

Constitutional regulatory reform, as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

As we say in Cali, por que no?